RFC - Downgrade BlueZ to v4.101 in Fedora 20
drago01 at gmail.com
Sat Jan 25 09:06:02 UTC 2014
On Sat, Jan 25, 2014 at 7:41 AM, Adam Williamson
<adamw at happyassassin.net> wrote:
> drago01 <drago01 at gmail.com> wrote:
>>On Fri, Jan 24, 2014 at 12:16 AM, Adam Williamson <awilliam at redhat.com>
>>> On Thu, 2014-01-23 at 16:56 -0500, Brian J. Murrell wrote:
>>>> > As a side note, it also needs to be discussed how such a key
>>>> > the bluetooth stack could go unnoticed through QA, and how to
>>>> > from happening again.
>>>> Indeed. I wondered the same myself.
>>> I'm somewhat cheered that our product has apparently reached the
>>> level where people consider a Bluetooth audio profile to be a 'key
>>> feature', but so far as our QA standards are concerned, it ain't.
>>> This didn't really 'pass unnoticed' through QA. I noticed it, and was
>>> supremely unconcerned.
>>We should stop this "its crap anyway" attitude. That's the reason why
>>people perceive fedora
>>as beta / unstable / breaks often etc.
>>Did you at least file a bug?
>>devel mailing list
>>devel at lists.fedoraproject.org
>>Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct
> It's not about "it's crap anyway", it's about our trade off between completeness and getting new stuff done. Fedora has *always* accepted major changes before they reach full feature parity with the thing they're replacing, and I don't see any indication anyone's expecting that to change.
There is a difference between a minor inconvenience (I have to do x, y
and z instead of just a or have to use a different tool to do task x)
and hardware that suddenly stops working after an upgrade. This thread
is clearly an indicator that at least some people have different
> Having said that I may have to go back and check things, because my memory is that this is something everyone involved (including the devs and fesco) knew about at the time, but it's being discussed as if it were a big surprise.
More information about the devel